PW: Evolving Standard Deal for eBook Originals - No Advance, 50/50 Split of Net Proceeds

This is exactly how my firm, New Street Communications, is structuring things. Publishers Weekly: "Most e-book original publishers interviewed by PW do not offer advances, explaining that the rules in the e-books world are different from traditional print publishing. Waxman said that while he won't rule out offering an advance to the right author, currently Diversion is not giving advances. Angela James, executive editor of Harlequin's e-book original imprint, Carina Books, said something similar: 'Carina Press does not offer advances, because the digital-first business model works differently.' The new business model is different largely because it works more like a partnership: the author supplies the text, the publisher pays for production, and they split the return down the middle (after the publisher recoups production costs). That's exactly how Diversion works. 'We put up money for the production costs and we recoup those costs as first revenues. That seems to be the model that makes sense in the nascent business at this time,' said Waxman. Open Road, the most visible publisher of e-book originals, also works on a 50/50 profit share, offering no advances. James said that in exchange for sacrificing the advance, Carina authors get 'increased marketing support, higher digital royalties on cover price, and more frequent royalty payments.'"

Copyright, Ebooks and the Unpredictable Future

Insightful essay from Emily Williams in Digital Book World: "Ebook publishers have unsurprisingly been in the vanguard of offering new terms to authors, often as a way of competing against the big established print houses. RosettaBooks, under agent Arthur Klebanoff, and the new Diversion Books, established by agent Scott Waxman, both offer 3-5 year contracts based on the proven principle that the future is hard to predict and flexibility for authors is key. Richard Nash, the former publisher of print indie Soft Skull who is now setting up Cursor, a new publisher proposing an innovative crowd-sourced digital+print model, has been more vocal about overturning the copyright status quo. In a manifesto on his blog Nash laid out his own version of the change principle: 'The publishing industry is in a state of turmoil. New sales channels are arising, new formats, new terms of sale. Authors deserve the chance to renegotiate as the industry evolves.' Nash thus offers Cursor authors 3-year renewable contracts, in return for 'a fairly broad basket of rights in the license…in audio, in English-language outside the US, in magazine republication, in translation.'"

Andrew Richard Albanese Asks An Important Question

In a brief piece considering the argument between the traditional book publishing establishment and authors/agents with regard to eBook royalty rates, Andrew Richard Albanese brings everything into sharp focus: "... it’s hard not to imagine the day coming very soon when e-books are the primary edition, when mainstream authors widely write works specifically for, and optimally consumed, in digital form. So the bigger question may be: when do we start treating print like a subsidiary right?"

Konrath's Amazon Encore Deal

Thanks to Rich Kelley for flagging Mike Shatzkin's important take on the new Konrath/Amazon deal for Konrath's forthcoming novel Shaken.

Amazon will publish the Kindle edition at $2.99 in October and release a paperback at $14.95 next February ... this is a significant jolt to conventional publishing economics. Sales of Konrath’s $2.99 ebook will deliver him about $2.10 a copy (Konrath says $2.04; not sure where the other six cents is going…), as much or more as he would make on a $14.95 paperback from a trade publisher, and significantly more than he’d make on a $9.99 ebook distributed under 'Agency' terms and current major publisher royalty conventions. And, however one feels about the degree to which pricing is a barrier to ebook sales, one must assume that the $2.99 price will result in a lot more ebook sales than a $9.99 price would. Many times the sales!

Google Editions re: Out-of-Print Proprietary Content

Forget the dead bookstore lead in this article. That's old news. The more important prose relates to Google Editions and the project's plans/hopes for "out of print" proprietary content: "In the beginning, though, it appears that that the only books Google might only be able to sell are those in the public domain. They are still involved in a long-running court battle, trying to get approval to move forward with their plans for Google Books, which would display books that are copyrighted but out-of-print along with with books that have eetered the public domain. Google’s plans had been challenged by the Author’s Guild and the Association of American Publishers. While there was a settlement, it has not been approved as the judge considers objections including some from the Department of Justice, which has concerns over several issues including anti-trust. And even if they get approval, there does seem to be at least one more hurdle — last month several groups representing visual artists announced plans to challenge Google’s plans. Another issue is that it’s being reported that Google does not yet have deals in place with publishers."

My view: Rights for "out of print" proprietary content routinely, per most trade contracts, revert to authors or the heirs. I believe that Google Editions should be required to negotiate rights (cutting individual deals) with authors or their heirs for any works that remain under copyright. Intellectual property continues to be property for the life of copyright. As an author myself, I certainly haven't endowed either the Authors Guild or the AAP with the auathority to allocate/negotiate e-rights in those works of mine for which I personally control e-rights. And as a publisher, I see no problem with doing the right thing by authors.

Random House Agonistes

Random House editors finally admit, albeit with reservations, that the firm's old contracts don't award it digital rights. Looks like William Styron is still useful, even from the grave. More from the New York Times here.